5 ms·

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wou

by 15155 6mo ago

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

advisedwang 6mo ago
Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?
- jp191919 6mo ago
  Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.
- 15155 6mo ago
  Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me. Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string. FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
- iamnothere 6mo ago
  You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6mo ago
    Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/received_a_reckless_driving_ticket_on_my_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
    - 15155 6mo ago
      FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.
      - chroma 6mo ago
        I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal. Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.
        kotaKat 6mo ago
        If they didn't want you to drink, John Deere wouldn't have put a cupholder on it. C'mon, that's entrapment!
        cucumber3732842 6mo ago
        >That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land. That's just BS. If the cops show up for any reason and they think they can get a DUI out of it they will try and write one.
    - sidewndr46 6mo ago
      This is most definitely completely false. All EPA laws apply to all vehicles originally sold as road legal forever.
    - doubled112 6mo ago
      Ontario, Canada has stunt driving laws that extend past the road to parking lots, farmer's fields, and more.
      - 6mo ago
  - autoexec 6mo ago
    > You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"
    - iamnothere 6mo ago
      Some would, some wouldn’t. There are some who only care about home defense or sport shooting on private land. Open carry and CCW folks would be quite upset, yes. The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.
- chroma 6mo ago
  Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  > Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned? Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.
mananaysiempre 6mo ago
> "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory. Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  >We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses See also: "your 4th/5th/8th amendment rights aren't being violated because this is an administrative matter not a civil one" >Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.) On an unrelated not the people who hold up the banning of child labor as some good thing really peeve me because it's ignorant of history. Child labor went away because industrialization made a man with a machine more valuable than a child with or without a machine. Then once child labor was mostly gone the government went back and banned it in the few places it hung on. Textbook low impact pandering. Not any sort of accomplishment or hard fought thing. And it worked, because they're still crediting the government with it over a century later.
SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".
- 15155 6mo ago
  "Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
    I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 15155 6mo ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
    - AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
      "Established law for decades" seems to me to be almost the opposite of "neener neener", which I take to be more along the lines of "cutesy legal tricks".
  - StefanBatory 6mo ago
    Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

by 15155 6mo ago

advisedwang 6mo ago

Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

jp191919 6mo ago
Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.
15155 6mo ago
Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me. Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string. FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
iamnothere 6mo ago
You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
- Sohcahtoa82 6mo ago
  Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/received_a_reckless_driving_ticket_on_my_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
  - 15155 6mo ago
    FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.
    - chroma 6mo ago
      I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal. Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.
      - kotaKat 6mo ago
        If they didn't want you to drink, John Deere wouldn't have put a cupholder on it. C'mon, that's entrapment!
      - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
        >That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land. That's just BS. If the cops show up for any reason and they think they can get a DUI out of it they will try and write one.
  - sidewndr46 6mo ago
    This is most definitely completely false. All EPA laws apply to all vehicles originally sold as road legal forever.
  - doubled112 6mo ago
    Ontario, Canada has stunt driving laws that extend past the road to parking lots, farmer's fields, and more.
    - 6mo ago
- autoexec 6mo ago
  > You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"
  - iamnothere 6mo ago
    Some would, some wouldn’t. There are some who only care about home defense or sport shooting on private land. Open carry and CCW folks would be quite upset, yes. The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.
chroma 6mo ago
Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.
bigbadfeline 6mo ago
> Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned? Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.

mananaysiempre 6mo ago

> "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory. Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)

cucumber3732842 6mo ago
>We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses See also: "your 4th/5th/8th amendment rights aren't being violated because this is an administrative matter not a civil one" >Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.) On an unrelated not the people who hold up the banning of child labor as some good thing really peeve me because it's ignorant of history. Child labor went away because industrialization made a man with a machine more valuable than a child with or without a machine. Then once child labor was mostly gone the government went back and banned it in the few places it hung on. Textbook low impact pandering. Not any sort of accomplishment or hard fought thing. And it worked, because they're still crediting the government with it over a century later.

SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago

"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".

15155 6mo ago
"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
  I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 15155 6mo ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
  - AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
    "Established law for decades" seems to me to be almost the opposite of "neener neener", which I take to be more along the lines of "cutesy legal tricks".
- StefanBatory 6mo ago
  Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)